' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This judgment will dispose of all of the following appeals wherein the common questions of law and facts are involved:--
(1) F.A.O. No,357 of 2010
(2) F.A.O. No,358 of 2010
(3) F.A.O. No,359 of 2010
(4) F.A.O. No,360 of 2010
2. The respondent Mst. Nasreen Aftab made an eviction petitions against her tenants namely Kamran Khan, occupant of shop No,16, Salim Pervaiz, occupant of shop No,17 Javed Iqbal, occupant of shop No,18 and Khalid Yaqoob, occupant of shop No,19, situated in Rehman Liberty Market Aziz Shaheed Road, Sialkot Cant. On the ground of her personal need.
3. The present appellants/respondents in the ejectment petitions contested the petitions and the learned Rent Controller from the divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the petition is pre-mutred as per the contents of preliminary objection No,1? OPR.
(2) Whether the respondent has paid any amount of pagri or security? OPR.
(3) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for bona fide need or not?
(4) Relief.
4. Learned Rent Controller Sialkot Cantt. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties accepted all the four ejectment petitions vide a single order dated 3-4-2010. Hence the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has sought ejectment of the present appellant on the ground of personal need for the use of her son which is not available to respondent under section 17(4)(b)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 but the learned Rent Controller while deciding the eviction petitions has completely ignored this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Mrs. Noor Jehan Bi v. Muhammad Yousaf (2002 SCM R 1933), Muhammad Inayat v. Saleh Muhammad (2001 SCM R 599) Mst. Bilquis Oadri v. Mst. Nishat Mushtaq (2010 SCM R 775) and Ch. Akbar Hussain v. Mrs. Zehra Bai (2002 SCM R 789).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant has not applied for the eviction of the appellant on the ground of personal use for the use of her son. She herself requires the disputed shop for the running of the business of the restaurant to be supervised by her son namely Ferhan Aftab who is jobless. Therefore, the eviction order is in accordance with law and is liable to be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Altaf Hussain v. Mst. Nuzhat un Nisa (PLD 2000 SC 67), Umair Ahmed v. Muhammad Jameel (2011 YLR 82), Mst. Firdous Sabir v. Haji Mushtaq Ahmed Pervaiz (1994 SCM R 355).
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record.
8. The tenancy, terms and conditions of lease deed in all the four petitions are admitted. An amount of Rs,25,000 regarding/shop No, 16 Kamran Khan, an amount of Rs, 50,000 regarding shop No, 17 of Salim Pervaiz, an amount of Rs, 25,000 regarding shop No, 18 of Javaid Iqbal is lying with the respondent-landlord and an amount of Rs,50,000 regarding shop No, 19 of Khalid Yaqoob is lying with the landlord and the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the tenants/appellants at the time of vacation of the shops by the landlord- respondent.
9. The main stress of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under section 17(4)(b)(i) of the Act ibid, the commercial premises can be got vacated only for the personal use of the landlord and not for any member of his family including the son. According to the case-law (supra) produced by the learned counsel for the appellants, a landlord can apply under section 17(4)(b) (i) of the Act for ejectment of tenant for his personal use and not for any member of family but in the instant case landlady after removal of the partition wall among the four disputed shops intends to convert them into a restaurant and her son Ferhan Aftab will look-after the business on her behalf.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Mst. Firdous Sabir v. Haji Mushtaq Ahmed Pervaiz (supra) that "term own use" cannot be restricted to mean that landlord cannot do business through her husband or nieces. In this case land lady intends to run business of restaurant under the supervision of her son. So, the case-law produced by the learned counsel for the appellants is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. From the un-rebutted evidence on record it is established that the respondent-land lady requires the disputed shops for her own use. It is prerogative of land lady-respondent to use her premises in any manner she likes. She intends to run a restaurant after getting the possession of the disputed shops to be supervised by her son. The rights of the tenants are protected under section 17(6) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. If a landlord does not occupy the premises within one month of the date of obtaining its possession, the tenant who had been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession of such building be restored to him and the Controller may thereon make an order accordingly. Sufficient safeguard has been placed by the statute against the landlords getting possession of the rented premises with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders, which are in accordance with taw and the same are hereby maintained.
' In view of above, all the four appeals are without merits and the same stand dismissed.